Abstract

In a new paper, Prof. Bezemer explains how the shift of debt issued to fund "unproductive" rather than "productive" investments explains the global financial and economic development of the past three decades.

By Dirk Bezemer,  University of Groningen 

The significance of credit goes beyond simply accommodating changes in the economy’s fundamentals. Credit itself may be among the drivers of the business cycle. There is no dearth of explanations for this observation — if anything, we have too many: Hayek’s mal-investment theory, Fisher’s debt deflation theory, Keynes’ theory on the collapse of effective demand, Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, Schumpeter’s creative destruction theory, Koo’s balance sheet recession (an extension of Fisher), and Perez’ financial cycles description (an extension of Schumpeter). Contemporary cutting-edge DSGE models have financial accelerator mechanisms, which ensure that any exogenous shock is amplified by nominal rigidities, interpreted as representing the credit system.

All these models offer narratives that explain the boom-bust dynamics of credit, and that provide us with reasons why this engenders boom-bust dynamics also in the macroeconomy, a dynamic that would not otherwise — in the absence of a financial system — exist. In these models, the ups and downs of the private credit system is not a stand-alone casino that macroeconomists can ignore. It is not “the oil that smooths the running of the economic engine,” as the usual allegory has it. If anything, it is more like the fuel for the economic engine in the upturn, without which growth would not be possible. In the downturn, it becomes sand in the wheels of commerce. Without debt, the bust would never be so deep.

With the exception of Richard Koo’s,  all these theories miss an important feature of financial systems today: they were constructed with business debt in mind. In them, loans are extended by lenders to nonfinancial firms to finance working capital or new investment.  However, today, most credit  does not finance new output, but transactions in assets, especially existing assets, like real estate.  This paper argues that this structural change in debt—what we label the “debt shift” — needs to be placed at the heart of a theory of debt and the business cycle. Most advanced and emerging economies today are financialized economies and most of the debt in a financialized economy does not generate wages or profits, but rather fuels capital gains through asset price increases.

Read Report (PDF)

Author(s)

Dirk Bezemer

Dirk Bezemer

Prof. Economics of International Financial Development, University of Grongingen


authors website
Dirk Bezemer is Professor of Economics of International Financial Development. He holds a PhD in economics (Amsterdam, 2001) and two MSc degrees (Wageningen, 1995). He was a researcher at Imperial College (Univ. London) and worked on development economics issues in policy advice and in the UK civil service before joining the University of Groningen, where he is an Associate Professor.



ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

READ ARTICLE

Richard Vague on Why Large Rapid Build Ups of Private Debt Cause Financial Crises.

An excerpt from The Next Economic Disaster: Why It's Coming and How to Avoid It.

READ ARTICLE

America's Private Debt Problem: How Private Debt is Slowing Down Growth and Hurting the Middle Class

A World Economic Roundtable report on private debt and the American middle class.

READ ARTICLE

A Guide to Essential Readings on Private Debt

READ ARTICLE

Private Debt Bonanza, Public Debt Legacies: The Euro-Zone’s Experience With Liberalized Private Finance Under Its Ill-Designed Currency Union

How institutional design and austerity is destroying the European economy